UK wealth management: the regulatory risks behind a model facing change
The FCA’s Wealth Management Survey Report 2026 is an insightful read, less because of what it says but more because of what lies beneath the habitual regulatory messages.
The survey covers around 400 firms. It focuses principally on discretionary portfolio management and draws mainly on firms’ latest data up to 31 December 2024. The FCA says it collects information that is not available through regulatory returns to help it understand the market and identify emerging risks.
The resulting picture is not obviously one of a sector in difficulty.
It is a large, optimistic and increasingly concentrated market. FCA finds that portfolio management client numbers have grown by 20% since 2022. Smaller specialist firms remain important. FCA’s separate Financial Lives survey found wealth manager users with investible assets of £100,000 or more broadly satisfied with their wealth manager. The traditional relationship model appears remarkably resilient.
But the data also suggests that the commercial model may be approaching a period of transition.
The FCA’s data points to multiple pressures and opportunities for change — consolidation, digitalisation, technology adoption, client expectations and service economics — which may reshape the commercial model in different ways. That variety of pressures matter.
A concentrated market – but what happens next?
Most striking in the report is the existing concentration by client number. Among firms that participated in all three FCA surveys, the ten largest firms now account for 89% of discretionary clients, compared with 70% in 2022.
But the same firms’ share of discretionary assets has moved in the opposite direction, from 62% to 59%.
So, larger providers appear to be capturing an increasing share of clients without a corresponding increase in their share of assets.
At the same time, 41% of firms surveyed plan either to acquire another firm, increase revenue or increase their client base by more than 25% over the following two years. But with 18% of firms considering winding down or selling all or part of their client base, how much of that anticipated growth will come from acquisition rather than organic expansion?
The FCA notes that smaller specialist firms continue to provide tailored and valuable services. With 89% of discretionary clients already served by the ten largest firms, further consolidation may be less about gaining market share and more about achieving scale, acquiring capability and improving operating efficiency.
That matters because acquisition-led growth can introduce different regulatory risks from organic growth, particularly around integration, capital, liquidity and group dependencies.
The funding of consolidation matters
The wealth survey refers briefly to financial resilience and disorderly failure, but the published data does not explain how consolidation is being financed.
However, the FCA’s separate 2025 review of consolidation in the financial advice and wealth management sector looked specifically at acquisitive groups and found examples involving debt-funded acquisitions, short-term borrowing, group guarantees and cash being transferred from regulated businesses to service liabilities elsewhere in a group. The FCA also identified cases where group debt and goodwill complicated the assessment of the regulated firm’s financial resilience.
This is a much more specific regulatory risk than the FCA’s generic, but important, proposition that “governance should keep pace with growth”.
For acquisitive strategies, a relevant question is whether the economics of the transaction can change the prudential risk profile of the regulated group.
Client and staff demographics create transition risk.
The data raises a longer-term question about people.
Portfolio management clients are predominantly in the 50–69 age group. The median age of investment managers is around 42 for women and 47 for men, and the overall number of investment managers has remained broadly stable.
In a relationship-led model, succession, adviser capacity and continuity of client service are not simply people issues; they are part of the economics and value of the proposition.
Acquisitions, adviser departures, retirement, changes in servicing teams and digitalisation can therefore affect more than internal organisation; they change the service clients experience.
That circles back to Consumer Duty, value, support and consumer understanding.
A firm’s operating model may be commercially efficient after consolidation while being less attractive to clients if the personal relationship they valued has disappeared. Equally, a high-cost personalised model may become increasingly difficult to justify where clients do not value all of the services supporting that cost.
A relationship business in an increasingly digital market
The FCA’s data also describes a sector which remains much more traditional in its client delivery model than current discussion about digital finance would suggest.
Face-to-face contact is available at 89% of firms for both onboarding and ending a relationship, and at more than 80% for investing, withdrawals and instructions.
There are around 5,400 investment managers, broadly unchanged since 2022, generally in their mid to late forties. Portfolio management clients are typically aged 50–69. Execution-only investors are younger, but the next generation of potential wealth clients is younger still — and likely to bring very different expectations of digital access and service.
The case for digitalisation is not necessarily that clients want to replace relationship-led wealth management. It may be that expectations around access and responsiveness are changing around it. The FCA cites research that 55% of consumers would only choose a provider offering 24/7 support, while its own survey shows wealth management remains predominantly face-to-face. That creates a more nuanced challenge: how to preserve the value of personal service while meeting increasingly digital expectations in what is still, overwhelmingly, a relationship business.
The regulatory challenge is therefore unlikely to be replacing the traditional model simply because technology makes an alternative possible. It is understanding which parts of the existing service clients actually value and where technology can improve delivery without removing those benefits.
That has a direct Consumer Duty dimension.
Fair value is not simply the lowest available price, the FCA expressly recognises that an enhanced level of customer service can itself constitute a benefit.
A face-to-face relationship may be more expensive to provide than an app-based service. That does not make it poor value if the client receives and values a correspondingly greater benefit, and the firm can evidence what the client is paying for.
That may become an increasingly important distinction as to how technology changes the cost base against which relationship-led wealth management is compared.
The FCA’s comments on fees deserve attention.
The report contains two relatively understated pointers on pricing.
The FCA says some firms may not have fully considered how their charging structures, including fixed fees, affect clients with smaller portfolios while FCA references its Financial Lives survey findings that nearly one-fifth (17%) of adults with £100,000 or more of investible assets who used a named wealth management firm were concerned that fees were high, hidden or complex.
Those two comments sit together. As firms broaden their client base or acquire portfolios containing clients of different sizes, charging structures which worked for one client population may produce different outcomes for another. In a consolidating market, do the economics of acquisition and scale translate into better value for clients, or simply into a different cost base for the provider?
Technology may alter the economics before it alters the proposition.
Only 13% of surveyed firms reported using AI, although 45% were either using it or considering doing so. Those numbers need some caution because the underlying information is already dated.
More interesting is where firms are considering AI.
The largest identified area is control efficiency, rather than handing over investment decisions.
That points towards a palatable development path for wealth management: technology supporting the traditional relationship model, not replacing it.
Yet FCA consumer research indicates 1 in 5 UK adults were open to AI making financial decisions for them. If technology can deliver equivalent or better client outcomes at materially lower marginal cost than a wholly relationship-led model, it could alter not only the economics of the operating model but the distribution model too. Conversely, the FCA’s emphasis on human oversight and good client outcomes may temper the pace at which firms are comfortable delegating investment decisions to AI.
The regulatory challenge, then, is less “how do we do digital?” and more “how does digital enable the firm’s chosen model to deliver the service, benefits and outcomes its clients need at a sustainable cost?”
Financial crime: where the data aligns with the FCA message.
The financial-crime section is different because the survey data does evidence control gaps. While there has been improvement,
- 26% of responding firms did not collect expected transaction frequency;
- 13% did not record expected investment amounts;
- around 10% did not verify source of wealth;
- around 6% did not undertake PEP checks; and
- around 7% did not carry out sanctions screening.
Some of those numbers are difficult to reconcile intuitively with the normal information needs of a discretionary wealth manager and perhaps is an example where digitisation can capture data once for multiple regulatory and commercial needs.
That raises a potentially more informative regulatory issue than whether a KYC refresh has been diarised. How does the firm’s information architecture enable and evidence multiple controls using information the business already holds?
What does the data point to?
Reading the FCA’s observations on the survey, its concerns are familiar: governance, resilience, financial crime, outsourcing, vulnerability and fair value. What is more interesting is what the data may be signalling beneath those concerns — a sector whose economics, ownership structures, service model and use of technology may all be shifting at once. The regulatory challenge may therefore be less about managing change as a discrete risk, and more about recognising that the underlying business model is itself starting to change.
The regulatory risk is not simply that wealth management is changing. Several commercial and structural forces are acting on the sector at the same time, while the commercial model itself may be entering a transition.
To discuss how the regulation impacts wealth, asset and investment management, feel free to get in touch. To stay up to date with regulatory developments each month, subscribe to our free Regulatory Enforcement and Issue Tracker (REIT) — described as “by far the most accessible update of its kind.”